Madison — The U.S. Supreme Court struck down overall limits Wednesday on how much donors can give to multiple candidates for Congress and political committees in a ruling that effectively eliminates similar restrictions on those giving to candidates for state offices in Wisconsin.

Eliminating Wisconsin's aggregate limits would mean donors could give any amount to political action committees that help bankroll campaigns.

The 5-4 ruling also puts into question whether separate limits can remain in place that restrict the total amount of money state candidates in Wisconsin can accept from political action committees, observers said.

"In a country of 300 million, the Supreme Court took an action that helps just over 1,200 donors. We're talking about a tiny fraction of the population that benefits from this decision and everybody else loses," said Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which lobbies for public financing of campaigns and limits on political donations.

But Mike Wittenwyler, a Madison campaign finance attorney who works for those on both sides of the political aisle, noted that contributions to candidates and PACs have to be disclosed — unlike donations to certain types of campaign-style groups that can be given in secret.

The decision will put "more money through the regulated, disclosed system," Wittenwyler said.

Federal law limits individual contributions to candidates for Congress to $2,600 for primaries and $2,600 for general elections — $5,200 in all during a two-year election cycle. The Supreme Court left those limits in place.

Separately, long-standing law limited the total amount donors could give to all candidates to $48,600 and to all other political committees to $74,600 every two years. Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee challenged those limits as an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment right to free speech.

The high court agreed.

"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

"Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition."

The decision comes four years after the court issued its Citizens United decision that found corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts in elections.

The dissenters contended the majority had created a loophole that would allow donors to funnel millions of dollars to a political party or candidate. After donors give to multiple candidates, the money can be transferred to those facing the toughest elections.

"Taken together with Citizens United...today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the dissenting justices.

The decision fell along familiar lines. Roberts was joined in the majority opinion by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas; Thomas wrote he would have gone further and struck down all contribution limits. Joining Breyer in dissent were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Wednesday's decision came a day after 13 Wisconsin communities voted overwhelmingly in advisory referendums that they wanted to see Citizens United overturned. Support for those measures ranged from 61% in Waterloo to 87% in Edgerton, according to a tally by the group United Wisconsin.

That brings to 41 the number of Wisconsin communities that have taken that stance.

Wednesday's court decision dealt only with donations in federal races but made clear state ones could not stand, said Wittenwyler and Rick Esenberg, the president of the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

Esenberg represents Fred Young of Racine, who last year sued Wisconsin election officials over the aggregate limits for state candidates. U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in Milwaukee put the case on hold in February, pending the outcome of McCutcheon's case before the Supreme Court.

Now that the high court has ruled on the matter, Esenberg said he was confident he would win the case.

State studies ruling

Officials with the state Government Accountability Board and Department of Justice said they were studying Wednesday's decision and offered no comment on the suit challenging limits in Wisconsin. The accountability board runs elections and is the defendant in the lawsuit; it is being represented by the Justice Department.

Wisconsin prohibits donors from giving more than $10,000 a year to all candidates, and that is what Young is challenging. He is not challenging the separate limits on how much donors can give to each candidate — $10,000 for governor, $1,000 for state senator and $500 for state representative.

There is no specific limit on donations to political action committees in Wisconsin. A de facto limit of $10,000 a year has been in place because of the aggregate limits for all donations.

If the aggregate limit is no longer in effect, then donors could give as much as they wanted to PACs, Wittenwyler said. PACs can pass on their funds to candidates or run independent efforts to help them.

Separately, candidates in Wisconsin face limits on how much they can accept from all PACs combined. Including donations from political parties, the maximum amount of PAC funds candidates can accept is about $700,000 for those running for governor, about $22,000 for those running for state Senate and about $11,000 for those running for the Assembly.

Wittenwyler and Esenberg said those overall limits may now be in doubt. Any PAC would face limits on what it could contribute, but the candidates would not face restrictions on the total amount of PAC money they could take under that scenario.

"I think that limit also would be called into question," Esenberg said.

Reince Priebus, who is the Republican National Committee chairman and grew up in Kenosha, released a statement calling the decision "an important first step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees and a vindication for all those who support robust, transparent political discourse."

Patrick Guarasci, a Milwaukee-based fundraiser for Democrats, said he believed the Supreme Court was hurting democracy with decisions in recent years striking down campaign finance limits. But he saw a silver lining in the latest decision because it could lead some rich donors to make more contributions that have to be disclosed instead of giving to groups that don't have to say where they get their money.

"At the very least, there is more disclosure" under the decision, he said. "You might see more mega-donors contributing directly to candidates and parties, which will strengthen candidates and parties."

One group that could benefit is candidates for second-tier races, he said.

Those candidates could now seek donations from wealthy givers who had already contributed $10,000 to candidates for governor. With no aggregate limit in place, those donors would be free to give sums on top of that to candidates for attorney general or the Legislature.

Jeremy Levinson, a Democratic campaign finance attorney in Milwaukee, said he was troubled by the Supreme Court's narrow definition of what constitutes corruption or the appearance of corruption. Following the majority's logic, a donor with business interests before the state could give maximum donations to the governor and every candidate for the Legislature without triggering concerns from the justices, he said.

"I don't think that's real world," he said.

The ruling is likely to beget more litigation over other campaign finance regulations, he said.

"There is enough at stake here to incentivize people to advocate for certain legal outcomes," he said.

About Patrick Marley

Patrick Marley covers state government and state politics. He is the author, with Journal Sentinel reporter Jason Stein, of "More Than They Bargained For: Scott Walker, Unions and the Fight for Wisconsin.”